Search form

You are here

After reading through a few threads and seeing what people have said, I'm starting to wonder if anyone really cares about what DnD ACTUALLY is. My friend and I who've combined knowledge of 2nd-4th editions spent last night looking over what we would have to watch out for. Then earlier today, we actually started going through the adventure module. So you guys (who all seem to hate damn near everything in the play test), let me explain my group from today. Me-DM/Cleric of Mordain, have played Dnd since 3.5. My buddy-Cleric of Pelor, has played since 2nd. My roommate-Fighter, played mostly 3rd, not 3.5. Last two friends-Rogue/Wizard, have only played DnD 4th, for only the last month, being extremely new to the game. Everyone actually ENJOYED, you know, had FUN with the play test. Yes, there are some concerns we talked about. We cleared through a room of 22 goblins in about 45 minutes, and only the fighter was dropped to 0 even. The smaller monsters, yes, seem to have the disadvantage off attacking and taking hits. Every small encounter room was cleared within 2-3 rounds and less than 15 minutes. There are things that we don't agree with, like the coup de grace to some of us seems broken as in that no matter what, any creature, even PC can automatically die in 2 rounds or less. The limited healing that the cleric of Pelor had seemed to limit what the fighter would rush into, but the none the less, the fighter was USEFUL and NOT dull. We found the fighter really interesting because the situations he could find himself in, plus it was fun to watch who could kill more, the fighter or wizard haha. My buddy an I know there's more wrong and we're gonna test a theory that only a fighter and cleric of Pelor can run this whole thing and use that to find what's wrong so far. So for those who are only concerned about using this play test to make sure EVERY stat and EVERY possibility is going to be maximized, stop for a second and think why you constantly complain and hate about everything that is 'dull' and 'useless' and 'has no point', and remember what this game is about, because I've got two people who in a month, apologize to me in every conversation for a session they missed, and look for any spot or reason to enjoy the full game, not just the hack and slash, first person, destroy every living thing and become a god parts that you all want to hate and complain about. Think about that for a damn minute before you go off telling WoTC that they need to do this and this and this, when we all damn well know that's just gonna seriously f*** up anything we really want this game to be.

I agree! Too much hating on a system that isn't even finished yet. I've had nothing but a blast running this so far. Keep this in mind as you guys hate on nitpicky details: For all intents and purposes you just got a free RPG that is easy to pick up if you have previous knowledge of D&D. It is a great intro to D&D for newbies as well.

I agree! Too much hating on a system that isn't even finished yet. I've had nothing but a blast running this so far. Keep this in mind as you guys hate on nitpicky details: For all intents and purposes you just got a free RPG that is easy to pick up if you have previous knowledge of D&D. It is a great intro to D&D for newbies as well.

Sure, but this is a playtest, and the time where rules are sussed out, ironed out, and the such. When I've playtested other games that my friends have worked on, we spend a lot of time arguing over details of semantics and mechanics, and push the game to the limits that we can see.

SO while I agree that there is some degree of doom and glooming going on...I don't see it as bad as you guys do, honestly. I see a lot of interesting discussion about what _can_ be done with the system as is, what it could potentially become, as well as things that people genuinely like and don't like, whether from personal preference or possible mechanical balance.

Making accusations that other people are 'doing it wrong' isn't helpful at all in the process, either way.

Most of the actual playtest threads I've seen have had lots of positive things to say along with the negatives. A lot of the "I just read through the rules and have lots of opinion" threads seem to be generally negative. I can't wait to actually give the rules a spin so I can meaningfully contribute.

To answer your the initial question of the title of the thread, I didn't treat the play test horridly!

Does one judge the quality of a cake by a spoon full of un-baked dough?

Does one judge the quality of a book by the first draft of just the first chapter?

Well, in some cases yes. However I believe that 5e has the potential to learn from the past mistakes of its previous editions and become its own unique game.

Yes it seems to pull from many existing editions and yes the rules are light, unclear at times and the design philosophy behind characters is as yet unknown, however this is merely the beginning.

If Wizards wants to invite us in the very beginning of the systems rules and foundations, seriously considering the critiques and criticisms the receive and thus affectively turn a fan-base into a pool of quasi co-creators then I'm for that sir!

I'd rather be heard in the beginning, when there is much to say then near the end when little can/will be changed.

I agree! Too much hating on a system that isn't even finished yet. I've had nothing but a blast running this so far. Keep this in mind as you guys hate on nitpicky details: For all intents and purposes you just got a free RPG that is easy to pick up if you have previous knowledge of D&D. It is a great intro to D&D for newbies as well.

Sure, but this is a playtest, and the time where rules are sussed out, ironed out, and the such. When I've playtested other games that my friends have worked on, we spend a lot of time arguing over details of semantics and mechanics, and push the game to the limits that we can see.

SO while I agree that there is some degree of doom and glooming going on...I don't see it as bad as you guys do, honestly. I see a lot of interesting discussion about what _can_ be done with the system as is, what it could potentially become, as well as things that people genuinely like and don't like, whether from personal preference or possible mechanical balance.

Making accusations that other people are 'doing it wrong' isn't helpful at all in the process, either way.

I see a lot of positive opinions as well, there just seems to be a lot of negativity for negativities sake.

To be honest I'm enjoying this but its too early to tell if I will like or dislike the final product.

Hopefully WOTC and Mearls can sort out the genuine constructive criticism from the "it sucks because I say so and here's why I'm more qualified to judge than you" hatefests.

To answer your the initial question of the title of the thread, I didn't treat the play test horridly!

Does one judge the quality of a cake by a spoon full of un-baked dough?

Does one judge the quality of a book by the first draft of just the first chapter?

Well, in some cases yes. However I believe that 5e has the potential to learn from the past mistakes of its previous editions and become its own unique game.

Yes it seems to pull from many existing editions and yes the rules are light, unclear at times and the design philosophy behind characters is as yet unknown, however this is merely the beginning.

If Wizards wants to invite us in the very beginning of the systems rules and foundations, seriously considering the critiques and criticisms the receive and thus affectively turn a fan-base into a pool of quasi co-creators then I'm for that sir!

I'd rather be heard in the beginning, when there is much to say then near the end when little can/will be changed.

I don't think play testers like you were the ones this was directed at. I think the author was just venting a feeling that a lot of us get when we go to a forum to discuss something we love and there's so much passionate hate towards it. Play testers that had already judged the material before they even got it and only read and played it to look for flaws. Love it or hate it the internet is the go to place for pointless bitching.

I also think all of this feedback is a clear indication of how divided the D&D community is. I've seen some well thought out arguments about Fighters being boring compared to later editions, but equally compelling arguments that this was how it was in older editions and they like the roleplaying aspect of it. Neither side is right since its purely opinion based. As more of the "modularity" is revealed some of these arguments might go away.

Awesome! I don't feel alone in this haha. I've actually seen more positives in the player board than the DM board. I hope they can sort the actual criticism from the hatefest. These two new people are really getting into and I'd hate to see a bunch of idiots who think that their version is the one and only version that can be allowed ruin it for them. If you hate it that much, then just create your own rule set. We've used the base rule set and have been perfectly okay with it, and very few house rules. The only thing we haven't enjoyed in the play test yet is that we've yet to actually role play haha. Has anyone been able to successfully do any role play yet?

i just wanted to say i am in complete agreement with you kykle. me and my group had a blast with the play test. i was strictly the DM i have played all the editions even the old brown booklets,lol wow long time ago. and the other in the group mostly only played 3rd -4th. sure we had some issues concerns but we all had the mind set that its a play test not the final product. I i had the time i would respond to all those on the forums that do nothing but complain about this or that., how this is usless or this has no meaning or why is this in here ect.. to them i only have one thing to say be constructive in laying out the complaints not the whole god i hate this.. for example the coup de grace 9heheh did i spell that right ?) that was in 3.5 right ? and my solution as a DM was just not to use it or tweek it and the movement can also use some tweeking ,unless i missed something my only real issue at this time is jesus how large the range is for spells those kinda ranges can realy put a a glitch on combat wiith that said i have a question concerning this just want to know what everyone thinks of how far the range on spells is and is everyone at least in this post ok with it ? again my solution i will just tweek it thats whats so great about this game is as a DM we can choose to include a rule tweek a certain rule, hombrew a rule or use another rule . Has everyone forgoten that about this game? i for one can not wait to see the finished content and i love .. love how its a nice combination of editions and yet will be its own game. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

i just wanted to say i am in complete agreement with you kykle. me and my group had a blast with the play test. i was strictly the DM i have played all the editions even the old brown booklets,lol wow long time ago. and the other in the group mostly only played 3rd -4th. sure we had some issues concerns but we all had the mind set that its a play test not the final product. I i had the time i would respond to all those on the forums that do nothing but complain about this or that., how this is usless or this has no meaning or why is this in here ect.. to them i only have one thing to say be constructive in laying out the complaints not the whole god i hate this.. for example the coup de grace 9heheh did i spell that right ?) that was in 3.5 right ? and my solution as a DM was just not to use it or tweek it and the movement can also use some tweeking ,unless i missed something my only real issue at this time is jesus how large the range is for spells those kinda ranges can realy put a a glitch on combat wiith that said i have a question concerning this just want to know what everyone thinks of how far the range on spells is and is everyone at least in this post ok with it ? again my solution i will just tweek it thats whats so great about this game is as a DM we can choose to include a rule tweek a certain rule, hombrew a rule or use another rule . Has everyone forgoten that about this game? i for one can not wait to see the finished content and i love .. love how its a nice combination of editions and yet will be its own game. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

So far this game is so easy to tweak. I'm really enjoying it as well.

@kykle: My stepson was using three of the pregens and was playing amongst himself during the whole game, having conversations between the three and almost split them up at one point over a disagreement. I gave him an xp bonus for that.

It seems to me people need to reread, or just read, the included letter from Mearls. It clearly says in there that there are features of the rules they didn't include so they could judge their necessity. He also states that this is a test of the Core Mechanics. From that, I gather what they want us focusing on are the rules for Avantage/Disadvantage, Checks and Contests, Magic and Attributes as Saving Throws.

He specifically says that testing for character abilities and level advancement and other things will be a later packet...so why are so many people focused on that stuff? Under DM basics in the DM Guide it seems to indicate that I should use the rules a guide that I interpret.

Just seems like some are focusing on the exact things they were told not to, and ignoring what the playtest is all about.

I do not hate it and I am very excited to start running players through the playtest. I have so mnay people in my gaming group I will have to run it at least 3 times to let everyone get a shot.

I think people in general will post about what they dont like more then what they like, that is just human nature.

The two things I really dislike at this point is Intoxication and from what I can see right now DEX seems to be a little too good. The way armor works now and that finesse is a weapon type and not a feat. But i also understand this is a playtest and there are rules I haven't sceen and things might change.

I only started posting re: the playtest today. And I've browsed the forums for a day or so. It seems to me that a lot of people are nitpicking rules, balances, and such, when (I thought) D&D made it clear what the focus of this first playtest is: Is it D&D? Were they able to boil down the game to its barest elements? is there something missing that would make it feel like D&D if it doesn't? With these most basic rules, can you play the game your way? That's the entire scope of this playtest.

Is the fighter a wimp? Tell them at the fighter playtest. Is the cleric no goos at healing? Cleric playtest. Dexterity potentially being a superstat? Okay, that's a good one to nip in the bud. Broad, basic stuff. For now.

"Our idea of rules modules has a wide range of scope; sometimes, our rules modules might just be small tweaks and variant rules, while other times they could be large-scale changes and entirely new subsystems. We want people to make the game their own, and that means provided a whole array of possibilities based on what you, the players, tell us that you want." -D&DNext Q&A Blog, 8/29/12, Answer #3.

If only people could actually understand what a play test is... Yea, we all felt that this was what DnD was meant to feel like for us. We're just waiting for more packets to look at a more overall spectrum, but as of for now, we're just going over things a little by little. Hell, we keep pointing out things that we missed on other peoples character sheets and they do the same for each other haha. It's definitely good team building, that's for sure. We're just keeping track of what doesn't fully make sense and what doesn't seem right so that way we can let WoTC know and hopefully have an answer in the next packet.

@tpamwow: That is awesome, and I have to say, that would've been hilarious to see as well!@jlpinli40: Thanks for that, I agree with you too obviously. It's just one packet, so it's not meant to destroy and rebuild.